Thursday, November 5, 2009
14 Tundra Swans today
After our usual breakfast in Greater Downtown Findley Lake, we took our regular ride around the lake. Ninety-Nine percent of the time we go counter clockwise by heading south on Shadyside. Once we turn north on Sunnyside, the road is at a distance from the lake. Where the lake edge curves around to border the road, the swans were close to the edge of the water. It's the first time that I've had a chance to see them feeding. They upend just like geese and apparently they they are happy to associate with the the geese. It was a funny sight to see, large white bird fannies and small white bird fannies, all flashing skyward as the birds chowed down on the goodies Findley Lake has to offer.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tundra Swan Update
Just a quick note to let you know that we have added three Tundra Swans to our little flock. Now the total of swans on Findley Lake is seven. A ride around the lake yesterday gave us a good look at the new swans. They appear to be a family group as the smaller one still has a grayish tinge to his white feathers. Also, they were separate from the original four swans. Currently the weather is pretty nice for Tundra Swans, who can tolerate much worse conditions. Temperatures were below freezing last night but it was mostly calm. Yesterday's rain had both hail and snow mixed into it but again, not much wind. Today its gray and damp with temperatures around 40 degrees. Until the next big storm blows them further south, they should be with us for a while.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Zoning The RURAL Out of Our Little Community #2
Before I start this next installment, please consider this idea: to preserve the RURAL nature of our community we need to make the zoning simple, and base it on the ideas of individual freedom balanced by fairness and caring for one's neighbors.
Trying to "fix" our zoning laws by exponentially increasing the definitions and requirements for special use permits is going in exactly the wrong direction IMO.
Today's example goes back to the question of sheds. Where are sheds allowed on one's property? In researching setbacks for non-residential structures, only one zoning area even has a set of setbacks defined for "other uses" (i.e. - not the primary residence). By our zoning law, which clearly states that if something isn't defined/mentioned in our laws it is "not allowed", you can have a shed but you can't locate it on your property. Of the five zones (A1, A2, AR, A, B), only B - Business lists setbacks for other buildings and it's clear that the intent is for locating a business structure such as factory/shop.
Now, lets do a little more research. What is the setback for a rear yard? First, what is a rear yard? By definition, a Yard, Rear - "That area extending across the entire width of the lot between the rear wall of the principal building and the rear line of the lot, and unoccupied except for parking, loading and unloading space, and garages and carports". Please note that the italics are mine. BY DEFINITION, you can't put a shed in a back yard because a back yard is UNOCCUPIED except for the defined usage.
Now, going back to my idea of preserving the RURAL nature of our community, how can we locate sheds simply. Lumping all non-residence structures together, I suggest that they be allowed anywhere on the property within 10' of side and rear property lines. This leaves room for owners to maintain the structures while not walking on the neighbor's property. This would be Permit By Right and structures under 150 square feet would not require a permit at all if meeting the setback and NOT obstructing the neighbor's view of the lake. If the location of the proposed building would be less than 10' from the property line, an Area Variance would be needed. As for the setback from the front, I believe even our residential setback is too restrictive. Certainly this should be discussed.
Notice that the idea is to be the least restrictive on the property owner while not inconveniencing the neighbor.
IMO setbacks in all zones for non-residential structures should be set at 10' for side and rear property lines. Structures under 150 square feet (sheds, dog houses, play houses, etc.) would not require permits if located 10' or more from the property lines. Simple.
Trying to "fix" our zoning laws by exponentially increasing the definitions and requirements for special use permits is going in exactly the wrong direction IMO.
Today's example goes back to the question of sheds. Where are sheds allowed on one's property? In researching setbacks for non-residential structures, only one zoning area even has a set of setbacks defined for "other uses" (i.e. - not the primary residence). By our zoning law, which clearly states that if something isn't defined/mentioned in our laws it is "not allowed", you can have a shed but you can't locate it on your property. Of the five zones (A1, A2, AR, A, B), only B - Business lists setbacks for other buildings and it's clear that the intent is for locating a business structure such as factory/shop.
Now, lets do a little more research. What is the setback for a rear yard? First, what is a rear yard? By definition, a Yard, Rear - "That area extending across the entire width of the lot between the rear wall of the principal building and the rear line of the lot, and unoccupied except for parking, loading and unloading space, and garages and carports". Please note that the italics are mine. BY DEFINITION, you can't put a shed in a back yard because a back yard is UNOCCUPIED except for the defined usage.
Now, going back to my idea of preserving the RURAL nature of our community, how can we locate sheds simply. Lumping all non-residence structures together, I suggest that they be allowed anywhere on the property within 10' of side and rear property lines. This leaves room for owners to maintain the structures while not walking on the neighbor's property. This would be Permit By Right and structures under 150 square feet would not require a permit at all if meeting the setback and NOT obstructing the neighbor's view of the lake. If the location of the proposed building would be less than 10' from the property line, an Area Variance would be needed. As for the setback from the front, I believe even our residential setback is too restrictive. Certainly this should be discussed.
Notice that the idea is to be the least restrictive on the property owner while not inconveniencing the neighbor.
IMO setbacks in all zones for non-residential structures should be set at 10' for side and rear property lines. Structures under 150 square feet (sheds, dog houses, play houses, etc.) would not require permits if located 10' or more from the property lines. Simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
